The Rebel Road…

The process of colonisation, brutal as it came to be understood, had many implications for the people concerned in its manifestation as well as the people it was unleashed upon. These implications have been cultural, social and political in nature but the most important implication; indeed, the root cause of the process has always been economic. The economic ramifications are twofold. Firstly, there is the reason that the colonisers went to the colonies to access cheap local labour and raw material. However, the most important reason was that the colonisers had adopted a capitalist economy. In doing so, they had set themselves on an almost predestined path towards local market exhaustion.

Due to the crisis of over-production that is inherent to the capitalist mode of production the local labour was, through the processes of technological advancement, not just alienated from the fruits of their labour but was left poorer than the day before. This has the effect of negating the buying capacity of the masses. This coupled with a sophisticated machine of production that is the capitalist economy, geared towards the mindless pursuit of profit, brings about a condition whereby supply overshoots demand by many factors. This is the crisis of overproduction as explained by Joseph Stalin in his book Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Once this is understood it is easy to understand that colonisation was an almost reflexive self-preservation action on the part of these economies. The markets in the colonies were new and by any standard rich. It is no wonder that the British had such a stranglehold on the Indian subcontinent that was regarded at the time as the ‘Golden Bird’.

Neo-colonialism is a new phenomenon that refers, and not incorrectly so, to the domination of the developed nations in the present day world system. One could argue that such domination, based on the power held by these countries is justified. Indeed, this is the premise behind the powers of the vetoing members of the UN as well as the G-8. But one must also take into account that domination, by virtue of any precept, is domination on someone. It leads to a condition that any decision taken within the UN, whether for the betterment of a single country that deserves it or the world as a whole, is filtered through often rivalling interests of the developed countries. There are numerous examples of the developed countries impeding the growth of single countries or stalling steps for ensuring world stability and security for their own reasons. I shall focus on the later in my example. World disarmament has been talked about at length and has been accepted as a good foundation for future generations to build upon, yet the US refuses to sign this accord. Why is that?

It is precisely because it goes against the internal interests of this country to sign this document and seeing that the world super power does not have respect for UN resolutions, other countries refuse to sign it as well. This gives rise to, what I shall call the global glass-ceiling effect of sorts. The term originally defines the problems faced by women in progressing in a patriarchal society but the dynamics are virtually identical to the problems faced by the underdeveloped countries, trying to make progress in a world system geared towards the preservation of the interests of the developed counties.

Furthermore, instruments of debt perpetuation such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) give incentives to the underdeveloped countries to fulfil their short run goals by incurring long term debts on a scale that has long crossed the level of pay-ability. Whole economies have been wrecked by such measures taken by the WB and the most disturbing fact is that the motive behind such ‘help’ is not to alleviate the problems of an indebted country but to establish coercive leverage upon it. As in the case of Pakistan, the government is forced, through compliance of economic coercion, to adopt policies that benefit the developed countries, especially the US in the long run.

Lenin explains imperialism in the light of the creation of monopoly capitalism. He says, “The principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the domination of monopolist associations of big employers. These monopolies are most firmly established when all the sources of raw materials are captured by one group, and we have seen with what zeal the international capitalist associations exert every effort to deprive their rivals of all opportunity of competing to buy, for example, iron-fields, oil fields, etc. Colonial possession alone gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle against competitors, including the case of the adversary wanting to be protected by a law establishing a state monopoly. The more capitalism is developed the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for the sources of raw materials throughout the whole world, the more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of colonies” (Imperialism, the Highest stage of Capitalism V. I. Lenin).

Globalisation, as can be seen, is a new link in a very old chain. It is an almost institutionalisation of Western capitalistic interests on a global level. The link between globalisation and inequality has long been established. According to Nancy Birdsall, there are two reasons for this. Firstly, the unequal sharing of the returns from what would become a super-efficient capitalist economy on a global scale. She attributes this to the characteristics of the world-market, which rewards those who enter it with the ‘right’ assets. Underdeveloped nations do not have these ‘right’ assets, all they can offer are cheap labour and resources that mostly they themselves cannot secure. The second reason is the imperfection of the phenomenon of markets. This means that an individual or a country can gain from the creation of negative effects. These negative effects, however, are not necessarily felt by the entity that produced them. In simple terms, one can create profit more recklessly without suffering the consequences of their actions.

Globalisation, therefore, is a new threat to the existence, freedom and sovereignty of the under-developed nations; the most sophisticated political and ideological beast yet to be unleashed by the West. It is, therefore, my contention that the urge to ‘gain support’, whether economic or political, through participating in the creation of this global polity be resisted for the eventual progress of any underdeveloped country.

Language has also sometimes played the role of unifying two nations or ethnicities. The Latino countries of Mexico and Spain are a classic example. The Mexican language is actually a derivative/dialect of the Spanish. The two varieties are rather similar in their syntax (by and large), but with more noticeable differences in the phonology. The reason for the Latino culture and values still being alive and observed in the Latin countries is the role which language is playing in sustaining these cultural ties. Their cultural ties have been so strong that the differences between Mexican and Spanish individuals are almost indiscernible. Mexico and Spain, through language, have kept the Latino cultural values alive. The Latin-American countries have a very rich set-up of cultural values. The Spanish language has served to bring the cultures closer (Fighting for faith and nation by Cynthia Keppley Mahmood, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997).

While English is not spoken as a native language by the largest number of people, it is the most worldwide in its distribution, being an official language in 52 countries as well as many small colonies and territories. America and Britain claim to be the real ancestors of the language. English language has come to them naturally as the native language. America and Britain also have a similar set of cultures too. The two facts mentioned might compel one to think of a cause and effect relationship existing between them, but actually it is not so. Having the same language has not been the deciding factor for the similar cultures and ethnicities in Britain and America. It might have played its limited role but there is a range of other factors too, such as the geopolitical situation of the two countries, the same religion Christianity, and the political standpoint of the two countries. Religion has played a major role in the parallel cultures/ethnicities of America and Britain as Christianity rules most of their beliefs, attitudes and values (England, their England, by A. G. MacDonell, The Macmillan Company, 1933).

“England and America are two countries separated by a common language” — George Bernard Shaw. Had language been the contributory factor for the similar cultures between different countries then how could the 52 countries, having entirely different ethnicities and nationalities, be explained where English is the majority and official language of the country. We have seen that English has become the second language of choice around the world for ordinary people as well. About a fourth to a third of all humanity now understands and speaks it to some degree. But visibly, all these people have exclusively different cultures and ethnicities.

Study of the development of democracy, the role of the state, the emergence of new nationalisms and new xenophobic and racist behaviours and of the role of ‘ethnico-national’ or ‘linguistico-cultural’ minorities are the core problems faced by a majority of the states today. But taking the case of Canada, it can be said that it is a multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-lingual state. There are several languages spoken in Canada by different ethnic groups. A multi-national state usually requires a great deal of work to keep together. Success or failure may be due to the success or failure at creating a functional multi-ethnic society. There are also people or nations united by something other than ethnicity, for instance religion. Language is not always a reason for uniting as well as dividing people or societies. Societies like Canada prove that different languages, cultures and ethnicities can and do co-exist within a dominion. Foreign nationals are living in Canada from about 50 member countries of the Commonwealth, including Indians, Pakistanis, South Africans, Jamaicans, and Trinidadians, etc.

Apart from the immigrants, even among the local Canadian nationals, languages other than English are also spoken, for example French, Czech, Dutch, and Haitian, etc. An entirely different ethnic group and a different language within Canada is in the Quebec province and the French language is spoken there. But this Quebec culture and language also exist within the larger united Canada. Canada, unlike Pakistan, is one of those nations that have accepted the reality of being a multi-national and multi-lingual country and gives the right to every ethnic or linguistic minority to observe their cultures, languages and ethnicities freely and that has saved them from facing a breakup of their country.

The multi-dimensional, relational and contextual nature of identity will be demonstrated through the case of Punjab. In the Indian subcontinent, before partition, the province of Punjab was ruled by Maharaja Ranjeet Singh. The common language that was spoken in the whole of Punjab then was Punjabi. It was the language of the Muslims as well as of the Sikhs of Punjab. Prior to partition, Punjab extended across both sides of what is now the India and Pakistan. West Punjab became part of Pakistan and the eastern wing went into the boundaries of India. The two wings were not equally blessed with natural resources. West Punjab was more fortunate and blessed in the sense that it had most of the rivers flowing through this side of the Punjab.

Due to the people ruling at that time, West Punjab was given preferential treatment in terms of development, growth and advancement. Therefore, there was fostering of hatred and malice towards western Muslims by the Sikhs who felt deprived on certain issues. These issues included a settlement of a longstanding dispute over the apportionment of Punjab’s river waters and the question of the allocation of the city of Chandigarh as the joint capital. Pakistani Punjab started becoming more urbanised and advanced and with this followed the development of the culture. The Muslim Punjabis and the Sikh Punjabis have resultantly become quite different from each other with regard to their cultures, values and standards in spite of the same language spoken in both the states, i.e. Urdu (Punjabi identities before and after the 1947 partition of Punjab by Ishtiaq Ahmed).

Having assessed all the cases in great detail, the conclusion that language (although one of the fundamental needs of a society and a marker for the delineation of different cultures and ethnic groups) is not itself the sole or even most powerful creator of ethnic divides becomes irresistible. Humanity is geared towards segregation and identity. Therefore, it is human nature to be identified with some ideal or some representation of who one is. Efforts to suppress these identities and differences can only lead to a never-ending discord within a society.

This is exactly what is seen in the case of Pakistan. Pakistan once constituted a rather impressive area with four provinces in the western part and one large province in the east. Now, due to our own narrow-mindedness and inability to see what was even then obvious, we have lost a major part of this.

The need of the hour is to shed our denial of problems and issues. As Muslims, we do not have one language. We do not have one geographical commonality. And we certainly fail to project the same religious outlook; a testament to which is the presence of sectarianism within Muslims themselves. Pakistan is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual political state. Therefore, it is high time we learn from our mistakes and in doing so help alleviate the linguistic suppression of our fellow Pakistani brethren.

(Concluded)

In this column it will be highlighted how language dictates and enhances ethnic divides. Three cases will be considered, first of Arabic. How it distinguishes between South-Asian people as Hindus and Muslims. Secondly, the Urdu and Bengali controversy and thirdly the case of Rhineland separated into different ethnicities.

Arabic is the language of identity for the Muslims. All Muslims, regardless of where they reside on the globe, find an intimate relation to Arabic. It binds all the Muslims throughout the world close together despite the differences. At first, it was thought that Arabic should be made the national language since it was not only the language of the Quran and Hadith but all Muslims were familiar with it through their religious practices.

“Arabic played a very important role in South East Asia to distinguish between Hindus and Muslims. Hindi and Urdu are both similar in many ways. A lot of words are common between the two languages. Urdu is derived from Hindi along with a galaxy of other interior Asian languages, including Turkish. An Urdu speaking individual can easily understand Hindi and vice versa. But as far as ethnicity is concerned, both languages are different in many respects. Arabic is a beacon for the ethnicity of Muslims. Hindus and Muslims are bearing questions regarding the relationship of language to ethnic identity and ethnic group membership” (Language and Ethnicity in South and Southeast Asia by Harold F. Schiffman).

Fisherman says that far beyond being a mere means of communication, language is the “quintessential symbol” of ethnicity since it is “the recorder of paternity, the expresser of patrimony and the carrier of phenomenology”. Paternity, patrimony and phenomenology are for Fishman the three forces that constitute the essence of ethnicity (Language and Ethnicity among a Group of Pentalingual Albuquerque, Greg Thomson). In the case of Hinduism and Islam, ethnic differences come to be reflected in linguistic differences as with of Hindu Hindi and Muslim Urdu. But Arabic is a dividing factor between Hindus and Muslims, otherwise, despite different ethnicities both languages are somewhat the same. And Arabic highlights this difference in ethnicity further.

With the creation of Pakistan, there was an overall desire in the country to implement a language that would secure the integrity and ethnicity of Pakistan. At this time, the Urdu-speaking population voiced their demands for Urdu to be implemented as the national language, arguing that Urdu had been the lingua franca during the freedom movement of India and the language of the Muslims of India. A lot of people supported this demand. “Others were of the view that the majority language, i.e. Bengali, whose speakers comprised 56 percent of the total population should be introduced as the national language” (‘Ethnicity and Linguistic Diversity’, the US library of Congress). The adoption of only Urdu, it was argued, in a multinational and multilingual country would contribute to the emergence of a sense of nationhood. It is important to point out that, among all the five provinces of Pakistan, Urdu was not the language of any of the ethnic nationalities.

The introduction of Urdu as the national language caused a series of problems that could not be easily solved. There was agitation, protests and grievances from the side of the Bengalis. In the western part of Pakistan the official language of Bengali was not preferred and, likewise, Urdu in the eastern part was given a secondary status. Hence, the tension continued to grow and problems festered. It was due to this that the Bengalis believed that they were ethically misrepresented and misinterpreted. The important thing to observe here is that ethnicity, which is very important to a nation and language, again played an important part in separating a community as the state of Bangladesh emerged. To the Bengalis, losing their language was like losing their ethnicity. Language is a legitimate claim for every nation as it is a representative of the ethnic values of a nation.

In a meeting of Tamaddun Majlis held at Fazlul Haque Hall of Dhaka University on November 12, 1947, Mr Amin said, “It is not logical to enforce the use of any language other than Bangla on the people of East Pakistan. I firmly believe that there is no barrier to declaring Bangla as the state language of East Pakistan” (Daily Azad, November 15, 1947). The differences in language continued regardless of similarity in other ethnic factors. The differences in languages simply drove East and West Pakistan away from each other.

The European grouping has seventy million inhabitants, and more now. “Friedrich Naumann’s much-debated book Mitteleuropa interpreted the term as a Central European Union that would have included the western part of the Russian Empire, Poland and the Baltic states, as it contained so many various ethnicities” (Democracy and Ethnic war, Michael Mann) A feature of his concept was that it was aimed at establishing a supranational political order in which various nations and ethnic groups would have been permitted to live according to their own legal systems. “In Central Europe, unlike, for instance, in the Rhineland – as the Jewish migration became intense – the ethnicity in Rhineland got affected further due to different culture and languages. By the end of the Middle Ages, as the result of a long process, Rhineland had become a multi-ethnic region. The different people living in Rhineland were ethnically mixed. The cultural role of the various larger ethnic groups and their languages resulted in a peculiar convergence that was independent of national frontiers and, indeed, cut across them” (Central Europe: Myth and Reality, György Granasztói).

Inspired by different ethnicities of Rhineland one of Milan Kundera’s essay called attention in a very powerful manner to the special yet deeply European roots of the region’s culture. “Denying ethnic uniformity, Kundera put emphasis on cultural similarities on sensitivities, on languages and coincidences” (Central Europe: Myth and Reality, György Granasztói). He said that the role of language led to a rethinking of the notions of a community and of society and to a new emphasis on related ideas based on various ethnicities.

(to be continued)